Limping QQ under the gun

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question I pose is precisely: *are there* any conditions--table, player, etc.--under which limping a hand like QQ under the gun can be correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question to this answer is obvious. The fact you are posting it here means you want vindication for getting ragged on at another forum.

Congratulations, this is the first "bad beat" post I've seen without you even playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Not sure what you mean, and while I believe the "obvious" answer is that there might be certain conditions where limping is correct, a lot of players had a hard time believing this.

I'm not really talking about the obvious ones like there is a maniac on my left, or the big blind is a maniac, or the game is super loose/aggro and I plan on reraising every time.

So "obviously" there are certain conditions which this is correct, but can you help me out and think of some instead of flaming me?

Aseem

[AEKDBet]

[ QUOTE ]
(cross-posted in SS NL)

Hi,

I am a member of another poker forum, and I posted a very controversial hand on there that generated a bunch of heated debate.

I claimed that in a deep stack no limit game, it is standard for me to limp a hand as big as QQ under the gun.

Before I divulge into reasons, I just want to hear some thoughts here. Can this be right? Or is it always wrong? etc.

Thanks,
Aseem

[/ QUOTE ]

An attempt to answer this question would summon tl;dr

[akishore]

I guess this thread is going nowhere. Let me post the reasons I stated and see if people will respond to more specific aspects of my stance.


[ QUOTE ]
if my stack is shallower, 50 bb for example, this is an easy raise. but, with a deep stack, 200 bb's for example, i genuinely don't raise it.




mostly it just has to do with the huge overlays on the turn and river when you play deep-stack poker.




since position is by FAR the biggest and most important holy grail of factors when it comes to deep stacks, i'd much rather sacrifice a *tiny* amount of money that comes from pushing a preflop equity edge than to play a big pot out of position with semi-deep stacks.




i mean, what's the harm in limping, letting the pot be multiway, and check/folding a bad flop? what's the harm in limping, someone raising behind you, and you being able to now reraise if the villian's stack is smaller?




i genuinely passionately intensely hate playing big pots out of position. i can't emphasize it enough, i hate it. i play sooo tight out of position, but QQ is obviously too good to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
...

[ QUOTE ]
in case i wasn't clear about overlays...




a bad preflop decision costs you maybe 3 - 5 bb's. a pot sized river decision costs you maybe 50 - 100 bb's.




position *vastly* increases the value of all your hands, on all streets. this means that playing a hand out of position can lead to an expensive 50 - 100 bb mistake on the river.




i'd much rather lose a little preflop value worth a fraction of a few bb's than force myself to make a bad river decision worth a fraction of 50 bb's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aseem

[DrPublo]

[ QUOTE ]

I also believe that I'm not really making suited connectors and the like "pay" when I'm charing them 4 or 5 bb's and we have 200 bb's or more in front of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um there are far more important reasons for raising before the flop than making suited connectors "pay to crack you." But hey if you want to check/fold with QQ every time you don't hit a set please be my guest.

The Doc

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also believe that I'm not really making suited connectors and the like "pay" when I'm charing them 4 or 5 bb's and we have 200 bb's or more in front of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um there are far more important reasons for raising before the flop than making suited connectors "pay to crack you." But hey if you want to check/fold with QQ every time you don't hit a set please be my guest.

The Doc

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding to this post by MightyMouse:

[ QUOTE ]
but to the OP, you should raise for information and to make people pay for suited connectors etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

And by the way, I stated (I believe) that I'm not check/folding every time I don't hit a set.

Aseem

[JKratzer]

Your question was if there existed conditions that it could be correct. "Obviously" there are conditions to support just about any action in poker, so to answer your question yes conditions exist.

If you want specific examples, there are many conditions, including the ones you listed. In addition to those you thought of I would advocate limping almost regardless of conditions, for metagame purposes. For instance, say you always raise with QQ, then whenever you limp under the gun, observant opponents will know you don't have QQ. So, limping sometimes will be correct in order to not be too predictable.

JKratzer

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
Your question was if there existed conditions that it could be correct. "Obviously" there are conditions to support just about any action in poker, so to answer your question yes conditions exist.

If you want specific examples, there are many conditions, including the ones you listed. In addition to those you thought of I would advocate limping almost regardless of conditions, for metagame purposes. For instance, say you always raise with QQ, then whenever you limp under the gun, observant opponents will know you don't have QQ. So, limping sometimes will be correct in order to not be too predictable.

JKratzer

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply, JKratzer.

Yes, I also realize metagame reasons (mixing up your game, deception) is one big reason.

But beyond that, I'm wondering if it's sometimes higher EV to limp them *regularly* in some deep-stack games--perhaps the loose/aggro kind, or maybe loose/passive-retarded-postflop kind?

If it helps, I normally always select and play in loose/aggro games. If not that, then usually just loose/passive. Sometimes, I find myself on a tight/passive or tight/aggressive table like in a tournament.

On any of these tables, I tend to play very loosely in position and very tightly out of position. So, I brought up queens as an example. In a deep stack game, I just detest playing big pots out of position with vulnerable hands including AA-QQ.

I have a significant amount of experience playing LAG with deep (200+ bb) stacks, and from this experience I have gained a huge appreciation for position in big-bet poker.

So, I'm wondering if what I'm doing really has the highest EV. That is, can limping queens and playing them passively since I'm out of position be better than the standard/textbook raising them? If not, what table conditions make this okay?

etc.

Thanks,
Aseem

[akishore]

In case anyone is interested in following the small stakes no limit forum discussion:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=3569076

Aseem

[akishore]

Bump...

If someone could address my reasons posted above, or maybe check out the (livelier) discussion in the SS NL forum, that would be great.

And please, I'm not doing this for a pat on the back or something. I really want to effectively analyze if what I'm doing is optimal or suboptimal, and if the textbook way to play queens here is really the best.

Aseem

[etizzle]

stop bumping this garbage